Jump to content

Talk:Neil Parish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Date of birth

[edit]

The FreeBMD page for registration of his birth is this one, showing third quarter 1956. Companies House also have him born in May 1956. Some other sources which give a date of 26 May include: Who's Who, europarl.europa.eu, and parallelparliament.co.uk. 26 May 1956 is also given at List of United Kingdom MPs by seniority (2017–2019) --Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources. Who's Who's UK is considered generally unreliable per WP:RSP so can't really use that. Thought I think europarl.europa.eu site you thinked is reliable enough for the infomation cited but not certain.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm not sure why europarl.europa.eu should be considered any less reliable than any official UK government source. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2022

[edit]

You need to add ‘tractors’ to his interests. 80.229.153.159 (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 💜  melecie  talk - 12:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems he has a "specialised interest" only in certain types of tractor. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2022

[edit]

Neil Parish has now been appointed to an office of profit under the crown, and as such is no longer an MP, effective today. The sidebar has already been edited to reflect this, but the lead paragraph is still worded as if he's currently an MP ("who has been Member of Parliament (MP) for Tiverton and Honiton since 2010"). Please edit the lead paragraph to reflect that he is, as of 4 May 2022, no longer an MP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecarterclan1 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed this has been done, but the top of the infobox still has the title MP next to his name, which needs removing 1234567jack (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Polyamorph (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And he can no longer be the incumbent Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, can he? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interests

[edit]

Who's Who here lists his 'Recreations' as "swimming, walking". This may be something that Parish has reported to Who's Who, but that's a perfectly reliable secondary source. Likewise the Somerset County Gazette here says "His leisure interests include music and swimming." Again, not a quote from Parish himself or from a website he controls, but a perfectly notable WP:RS. Not only have these details now been removed, four times by anon IPs, over the past two days, but the last revert came with a lovely personal attack in the edit summary: "what Neil Parish says about himself is not of interest. We deal in verifiable facts. I have observed at many, many articles that you do not have any real idea of what that means." They may be very mundane details, perhaps somewhat boring, but I'm really not sure why are they are not wholly suitable for inclusion in this article. Perhaps (one of) the anonymous IPs could explain further. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is see that the latest IP has now been blocked. But the common tone, running through the edit summaries, is one of condescension. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now a new IP here, but with the same criticizing tone in the edit summary. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only Neil Parish himself can make a claim as to what his hobbies are. No independent reliable source can ever verify that claim. As promotional, unverifiable trivia, it has absolutely no place in Wikipedia. 57.133.22.170 (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. We depend on WP:RS for most biographical information. Who's Who is one such source. I would suggest we get more views on this from other editors, so that a consensus might be established. Why do you regard the source and/or Parish's seemingly somewhat mundane interests as "promotional"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly an odd thing for the IP(s) to get so worked up about. And the edit summaries are complete personal attacks and, as such, out of line. The content is neither promotional nor unencyclopedic. Many/(most?) political entries here have a small Personal life section, in which details of the subject's wider interests/activities are included without it being an issue. Looking at this, for example, I learn the PM drinks Mexican coke, has a labrador, does Peloton and that his interests include football, cricket and horse racing. I don't think one line on Mr Neil Parish's interests is out of place. KJP1 (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No word yet on Neil's prefered beverage. But perhaps he still has all his own teeth. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banged Up

[edit]

In October 2023 Parish he appeared, alongside Hrvy (Harvey Leigh Cantwell), on Channel 4 in the second episode of the prison documentary Banged Up.[1] Here are some more source from Farmers Guardian: [1], Metro: [2] and Devon Live: [3]. This has been removed twice as "trivial", but don't understand why it is not a wholly appropriate addiction. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto you have removed this entry here. Could you explain why you think this fact is WP:UNDUE, and also point out which of the four sources you believe to be "generally unreliable"? Surely any "unreliability" is somewhat mitigated through the corroboration by the three other reliable sources. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You boldly added it, and I removed it because I believe that, as it stood, it looked like tabloid-style sensationalisation of a bit of tittle-tattle. To render it due, I think we need some quality sources, per WP:BLPRESTORE, behind it before we should consider it for re-inclusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a review from The Independent Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And here's one from Manchester Evening News. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And from The Daily Telegraph. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are really articles about Parish and his involvement in the programme though, they only mention him in one sentence each, so they hardly supply encyclopaedic content. They'd probably be okay to support his inclusion in a list of participants, or similar. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might need to read again The Independent review, where not only is the piece headed with a clip of Parish speaking in the Commons, and an explanation of his resignation, but where he is named four times. I'm not sure why anyone would expect "an article about Parish" to be required to support the addition of his appearance in this national TV series. The coverage is similar to the sort that's used for former MPs appearing on such programmes as I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! or Big Brother. I think your expectations are too high and your demand unrealistic. His appearance on that series would probably be of interest to many readers. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another review, in The Times: [4]. It's an interview with Parish and is headed: "What happened to the ‘highly sexed’ tractor porn MP in prison? Neil Parish is the Tory behind 'Tractorgate' who was caught watching porn in the Commons. Now he stars in Channel 4's Banged Up. He tells Alice Thomson about libido and old lags". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'd say that one in The Times gives it enough weight for inclusion, but it'll need a bit of context adding too, rather than the single terse sentence we had before. The other sources can be discarded as they add nothing. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Be my guest, I'm sure you're very good at providing context. I'm surprised that you don't see any of the other sources, including the primary one to the Channel 4 page, as useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are only needed to support content, not to supplement it. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Heaven forbid readers should want to go and watch it themselves, eh? It's a bit like Escape from Alcatraz meets Big Brother. But how much context is "a bit"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTREPOSITORY. We surely need enough context to at least give readers an awareness of the premise and idea of the TV show and Parish's role in it. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. I thought I might just go for "a bland statement of an appearance on an obscure television program, with no possible further context". Oh no, hang on. I already tried that, didn't I. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 'generally unreliable' source is Metro, per the link in my edit summary to WP:METRO. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Although in this case it looks like it was wholly reliable? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use RSP 'generally unreliable' sources in BLPs though. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to use it here, as there are other much better sources available. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not whether we need it, or not. It's that it has been judged as 'generally unreliable' in RSP and so should not be used at all, especially in a BLP. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you can't bring yourself to agree that there was nothing inaccurate in that source. But I'm quite happy to not use it. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's seems a weird, even obtuse, interpretation. Being unwilling to support the use of a source which has an RSP status which says Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person for information about a living person does not imply that I do not agree that there was nothing inaccurate in that source. All it means is that I think we should comply with Wiki policies and guidelines. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even intend to use it if he dies. But thanks for the lecture. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was you added it in the first place, and you're welcome. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah. I had almost forgotten. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Time and time again I've seen you adding trivial shit like this to articles, and demonstrating that you are utterly incapable of understanding what good content looks like. A bland statement of an appearance on an obscure television program, with no possible further context that can be provided, is of no general interest whatsoever. 2A00:23C8:D30B:5C00:F3AC:11C7:8240:AE90 (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP 2A00, your comment is WP:UNCIVIL. So you might want to consider striking it out or removing it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was it you who also previously left the edit summaries here and here? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And here and here and here, etc? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Watch Banged Up: Stars Behind Bars | Stream free on Channel 4". www.channel4.com.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neil_Parish&oldid=1271794016"